The first report into foreign interference against Canada from David Johnston is the Laurentian correction to a media narrative that got out of hand. Like a fact check article that doesn’t actually manage to disprove the “misinformation” it decries, it seeks to correct the public narrative more than it does the facts.

Johnston report is a great example of how Liberal Canadian elites are fairweather friends of the media. When coverage isn’t critical of the establishment, Laurentians style themselves as defenders of the free press, applauding the media and screeching when conservatives dare to criticize. When the media turns its attention to the elites themselves, the news morphs from a public good into a public bad, threatening national security and democracy.

Intelligence records showed that China indeed intended to send $250,000 to federal political candidates and influence them generally, as journalists had previously reported. Whether they succeeded was unknown, according to Johnston’s review of the records. He couldn’t disprove that political interference was happening, but he did show that it was a concern. However, he tried to frame it as relatively unconcerning because it did not alter the outcome of prior elections, but none of the media reports being scrutinized ever suggested the outcome was affected.

It’s entirely appropriate for a free press to publish on such matters, but Johnston was keener on blaming the messengers for tainting confidence in the security of Canadian elections.

Johnston did refute a report by Global News that alleged that Liberal MP Han Dong advised a Chinese diplomat to delay the release of the Canada’s “Two Michaels” from Chinese prisons. However, he downplayed the fact that Han Dong’s run for Parliament wasn’t squeaky clean: “Irregularities were observed with Mr. Dong’s nomination in 2019, and there is well-grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC Consulate in Toronto, with whom Mr. Dong maintains relationships.”

But while he acknowledged irregularities existed, Johnston was dismissive because it isn’t clear whether or not Dong knew about any interference.

“In reviewing the intelligence, I did not find evidence that Mr. Dong was aware of the irregularities or the PRC Consulate’s potential involvement in his nomination,” Johnston wrote. “The Prime Minister … concluded there was no basis to displace Mr. Dong as the candidate for Don Valley North. This was not an unreasonable conclusion based on the intelligence available to the Prime Minister at the time.”

The media, in Johnston’s view, failed because it “amplified” public concern over Chinese election interference. Despite the confirmation of interference intentions and actual “irregularities” in Canadian politics, the media reporting was somehow, to Johnston, irresponsible.

“Based on my full review of the intelligence and context, it is my view that the leaks and the subsequent media reporting have led to such misapprehensions, particularly relating to incidents that are alleged to have occurred in the 2019 and 2021 elections,” reads the report.

Media reporting, Johnston wrote, led to “further unsubstantiated speculation, inaccurate connections being drawn, and a narrative emerging that the government allowed or tolerated foreign interference.” The narrative that the government failed to deal with the interference, in Johnston’s view, wasn’t a fair one to make.

Johnston went as far as implying that the concern over foreign interference was based in racism, as sending busloads of people to nomination meetings was normal, and may have received extra attention in this story because the buses contained “racialized Canadians.” This is clearly contradicted by the existence of irregularities that the report itself acknowledged to exist.

Johnston’s verdict: The media focuses on unimportant things and is also somehow racist. It’s exactly the conclusion, one would expect from an Ottawa governing class veteran and family friend of Liberal leaders.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been an ardent defender of media — when it suits him. When U.S. Donald Trump was in power, he spoke publicly about and critically about undermining the legitimacy of the media. When the CBC faced criticism by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre for biased reporting, Trudeau was quick to accuse the party of attacking the free press.

Regardless of whether one thinks it’s fair for Poilievre to criticize a broadcaster that launched an unsuccessful lawsuit against his party during an election period, it’s hypocritical for Trudeau (via a hired family friend to investigate the matter) to run to the same defence now that the spotlight is on the government.

It’s not the government’s job (or the special rapporteur’s job, for that matter) to hold media accountable. On a day-to-day basis, that’s the job of the readers. When serious disagreements arise, it becomes the job of the courts. Johnston tried to insert himself into the relationship between journalism and the public, but the effort came across as entitled. It’s the writers and the readers, not the Laurentian elites, who decide what elements of a story deserve focus and which parts are unimportant.